Gabriel Moisan1,2, Martin Descarreaux1,2, Vincent Cantin1,2. 1. Department of Human Kinetics, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, PQ, Canada. 2. Groupe de Recherche sur les Affections Neuro-musculo-squelettiques (GRAN), Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, PQ, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: The biomechanical effects of foot orthoses (FOs) with and without a lateral bar compared to a control condition during walking at different speeds are still unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the biomechanical effects of functional FOs with and without a lateral bar to a control condition during comfortable walking in individuals with cavus feet and determine if their effects change at a fast speed. METHODS: Fifteen individuals with cavus feet (age: 25.3 ± 5.8 yrs) walked under two experimental conditions (FOs with and without a lateral bar) and a control condition (shoes only) at comfortable (CW) and fast (FW) speeds. The outcome measures were ankle and knee angles and gluteus medius, vastus lateralis, gastrocnemius lateralis, gastrocnemius medialis, peroneus longus and tibialis anterior electromyography (EMG) amplitudes during the stance phase of walking and were compared between the FOs and a control condition using one-dimensional statistical parametric mapping. RESULTS: During CW, both FOs decreased ankle dorsiflexion and increased knee extension angles compared to no FOs. FOs with a lateral bar also decreased peroneus longus EMG amplitudes. During FW, FOs with and without a lateral bar decreased ankle dorsiflexion angles compared to no FOs. CONCLUSION: Both types of FOs had different effects on the biomechanics of the lower limb compared to a control condition. The decreased peroneus longus EMG amplitudes during CW in individuals with cavus feet could have important clinical implications in other populations, such as individuals with painful cavus feet. The orthoses only affected the ankle dorsiflexion angles at a fast speed and no EMG amplitude or knee kinematics effects were observed. Further studies assessing the ankle kinematics and kinetics effects of these orthoses are needed to improve our understanding of their mechanism of action and inform future efficacy trials.
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: The biomechanical effects of foot orthoses (FOs) with and without a lateral bar compared to a control condition during walking at different speeds are still unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the biomechanical effects of functional FOs with and without a lateral bar to a control condition during comfortable walking in individuals with cavus feet and determine if their effects change at a fast speed. METHODS: Fifteen individuals with cavus feet (age: 25.3 ± 5.8 yrs) walked under two experimental conditions (FOs with and without a lateral bar) and a control condition (shoes only) at comfortable (CW) and fast (FW) speeds. The outcome measures were ankle and knee angles and gluteus medius, vastus lateralis, gastrocnemius lateralis, gastrocnemius medialis, peroneus longus and tibialis anterior electromyography (EMG) amplitudes during the stance phase of walking and were compared between the FOs and a control condition using one-dimensional statistical parametric mapping. RESULTS: During CW, both FOs decreased ankle dorsiflexion and increased knee extension angles compared to no FOs. FOs with a lateral bar also decreased peroneus longus EMG amplitudes. During FW, FOs with and without a lateral bar decreased ankle dorsiflexion angles compared to no FOs. CONCLUSION: Both types of FOs had different effects on the biomechanics of the lower limb compared to a control condition. The decreased peroneus longus EMG amplitudes during CW in individuals with cavus feet could have important clinical implications in other populations, such as individuals with painful cavus feet. The orthoses only affected the ankle dorsiflexion angles at a fast speed and no EMG amplitude or knee kinematics effects were observed. Further studies assessing the ankle kinematics and kinetics effects of these orthoses are needed to improve our understanding of their mechanism of action and inform future efficacy trials.
Authors: Kathryn Mills; Peter Blanch; Andrew R Chapman; Thomas G McPoil; Bill Vicenzino Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2009-12-08 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Anmin Liu; Christopher James Nester; Richard Keith Jones; Paul Lundgren; Arne Lundberg; Antony Arndt; Peter Wolf Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: R Dubbeldam; J H Buurke; C Simons; C G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; H Baan; A V Nene; H J Hermens Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.063
Authors: Glen A Whittaker; Shannon E Munteanu; Hylton B Menz; Jade M Tan; Chantel L Rabusin; Karl B Landorf Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Ruben Sanchez-Gomez; Alvaro Gomez-Carrion; Carlos Martinez-Sebastian; Luis Alou; David Sevillano; Almudena Nuñez-Fernandez; Paola Sanz-Wozniak; Blanca de la Cruz-Torres Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 4.241